Conflicting advice between Bishop and Doctors?


Jennison
 Share

Recommended Posts

The covenant I feel I have made is to have sexual relations only with the person to whom I am married.  

 

I can see how people believe that masturbation is not included in that covenant, but I can also understand the interpretation that such relations are meant to be kept between the spouses, and so masturbation would be disqualified.  

 

My personal feelings are that, generally, masturbation is out (I am not married to myself).  But I don't really care to debate the topic with people.  The covenant wording itself is ambiguous and so I'll let people choose for themselves*.

 

Once you start talking about the issue within a marriage, I think it gets a lot murkier, but that's a topic for a board that no longer exists on this site.

 

 

* I would point out, however, that there is a large body of evidence from general authorities speaking against masturbation (usually directed toward single members, but much being applicable to married members as well).  But I"m also willing to grant people the liberty to determine for themselves if that is culturally biased or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

* I would point out, however, that there is a large body of evidence from general authorities speaking against masturbation (usually directed toward single members, but much being applicable to married members as well).  But I"m also willing to grant people the liberty to determine for themselves if that is culturally biased or not.

 

The spirit of the law on that - the doctrine that it is built upon - is not culturall biased, so I'm not sure I understand why it would be culturally biased.

 

The doctrine is pretty simple - sex is an expression of love between husband and wife.  It is not meant to be used for any other purpose.  So, is what you're saying that masturbation is not sex in some cultural context?  Somehow, that doesn't sound right to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please don't be arrogant enough to tell me what I have covenanted.

 

Here we go again.. the start of the decline of Civil Discourse.

 

I am not arrogant enough to tell you what you have covenanted.  I simply assumed as I thought you were a baptized member of the Church in good standing - or was at some point in your life.  If that assumption is wrong, then you didn't.  You can just tell me you didn't make a baptismal covenant instead of calling me arrogant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The spirit of the law on that - the doctrine that it is built upon - is not culturall biased, so I'm not sure I understand why it would be culturally biased.

 

The doctrine is pretty simple - sex is an expression of love between husband and wife.  It is not meant to be used for any other purpose.  So, is what you're saying that masturbation is not sex in some cultural context?  Somehow, that doesn't sound right to me.

 

And I understand why you feel that way.  I also understand why some people feel differently.  Which is why I'm not keen on telling them that they must use the same interpretation of the covenant that I use.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to throw a wrench in the whole medical masturbation thing: It's pretty much required for fertility treatments. I'm not sure I could see anyone calling that wrong.

 

A doctor advising it for sexual release because of increased libido......that's a different thing altogether I think. But, who knows if that's what the OP is even talking about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Just to throw a wrench in the whole medical masturbation thing: It's pretty much required for fertility treatments. I'm not sure I could see anyone calling that wrong.

 

Having direct experience with the whole gamut of fertility treatments, I can unequivocally tell you that it is not required. There is a way to accomplish what needs to be done there without the man having to break the LoC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having direct experience with the whole gamut of fertility treatments, I can unequivocally tell you that it is not required. There is a way to accomplish what needs to be done there without the man having to break the LoC.

 

Are you implying that masturbating into the little cup to have sperm count checked or to prepare for IUI or IVF is breaking the law of chastity?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm saying straight up that it can be avoided. I'm trying to be delicate here. 

 

It can be. But in some circumstances (jobs, etc) it can be very difficult. But that doesn't really answer the question, which was: Are you saying it should be avoided as to not break the LoC? I'm not judging. Just curious. I won't agree with you if you feel that way, but I won't hold it against you either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm saying my husband didn't feel good about it, neither did I, and we found a simple solution. It's not hard for us to be in the same room together. 

 

When it comes to fertility treatments, I'm never going to be one to tell someone their choices were wrong. I've gotten enough of that over the years. Everything should be taken with prayer and hearkening to the Spirit, and consulting with the bishop when you get stuck. That's my entire opinion on the subject. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you implying that masturbating into the little cup to have sperm count checked or to prepare for IUI or IVF is breaking the law of chastity?

 

I know this is going to come across as picking on you based on other conversations we have going on right now, but I think this is an unfair question.  She's stated her interpretation, but she's also been clear (I think) that she doesn't expect the same decision of everyone (and I thought this before we got to this comment...but it could be possible I think this just because of past familiarity with Eowyn).  

 

In any case, she's right, it isn't necessary.  What she and her husband chose to do for their treatments is not a statement of what all couples should do.  And I'm uncomfortable pressing her for more than that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, MoE. I did come off as being a little absolute there, but had to step back, remembering all of the asinine judgments we've had thrown at us through the course of our fertility treatments. I had never thought about whether it's breaking  the LoC beyond the scope of our own experience. It was good to think about. And yeah, I'm not comfortable saying any more about it, forum rules or none. I had a difficult enough time skating around the issue without tripping over a lot of unfortunate phraseology. LOL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know this is going to come across as picking on you based on other conversations we have going on right now, but I think this is an unfair question.  She's stated her interpretation, but she's also been clear (I think) that she doesn't expect the same decision of everyone (and I thought this before we got to this comment...but it could be possible I think this just because of past familiarity with Eowyn).  

 

In any case, she's right, it isn't necessary.  What she and her husband chose to do for their treatments is not a statement of what all couples should do.  And I'm uncomfortable pressing her for more than that. 

 

It does not come across as picking on me. But thank you for the consideration in that regard.

 

I do think I qualified my question fairly well as mere curiosity though, and have no expectation or demand for an answer.

 

Edit: Her answer was awesome anyhow...so...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have made baptismal covenants.  I've made temple covenants.  I don't personally feel that they specifically include (or exclude) masturbation.  And it's no person's right but my own to tell me what those covenants mean for me.

 

I agree with MOE's approach generally, and sympathize with you (even though I don't agree 100%) here as well--up to your last sentence.  To say that no one can define the baptismal covenants or covenantal obligations like obedience, or chastity, or consecration; is to come awfully close to a) hamstringing the Church's ability to teach any kind of absolute morality--about anything; and b ) undermine the authority of those whose stewardship it is to evaluate our covenant-keeping (bishops and stake presidents, for example).

 

I can visualize suggesting that under the OP's circumstances it may be a necessary evil (though part of me is thinking, really?  Exactly what credible medical organization has indicated masturbation as a medically necessary treatment for anything?); but in my book suggesting it's not even evil (or only subjectively so) goes way too far and (pardon the pun) sows the seed for a lot of unhappiness and heartache for those who take such advice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I have made baptismal covenants.  I've made temple covenants.  I don't personally feel that they specifically include (or exclude) masturbation.  And it's no person's right but my own to tell me what those covenants mean for me.

 

I agree with MOE's approach generally, and sympathize with you (even though I don't agree 100%) here as well--up to your last sentence.  To say that no one can define the baptismal covenants or covenantal obligations like obedience, or chastity, or consecration; is to come awfully close to a) hamstringing the Church's ability to teach any kind of absolute morality--about anything; and b ) undermine the authority of those whose stewardship it is to evaluate our covenant-keeping (bishops and stake presidents, for example).

 

I chose the wording of that last sentence very carefully.  I'm not attempting or meaning to dismiss a bishop's stewardship (or other Priesthood leader) in matters of discipline, worthiness or counsel.  My statement was that my covenants are between me and the Lord.  Others can share their own experiences.  Leaders can teach foundations.  But my convenants, the ones I agree to, those are between me and my God.  I am the best person to interpret how God communicates with me.  Just as you are the best person to interpret how God communicates with you.  A bishop may counsel me that I'm wrong, and I'll listen to him.  He also reserves the right to revoke my temple recommend if they feel I'm not keeping my covenants.  But I am comfortable in my obedience of those promises.  So again I'll say that no one (but God) has the right to tell me what the covenants I've made mean to me.

 

Interestingly, I've not indicated in this thread that I'm pro-masturbation, which I imagine more than a few are thinking.  Simply that I don't feel that it's something about which I've made covenants.  If I were in the OP's situation (assuming this is the situation), I would seriously consider both my doctor's and my bishop's counsel and advice.  I'd recognize that my bishop isn't medically trained, and doesn't understand biology or human chemistry.  I'd also acknowledge that my doctor is limited by human knowledge, and may not understand that all God's commandments are spiritual in nature.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Interestingly, I've not indicated in this thread that I'm pro-masturbation, which I imagine more than a few are thinking.  Simply that I don't feel that it's something about which I've made covenants.

No, actually I was picking on your wording. At baptism you covenant to keep the commandments of God, so if you believe it's a commandment, than you have covenanted not to do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, actually I was picking on your wording. At baptism you covenant to keep the commandments of God, so if you believe it's a commandment, than you have covenanted not to do it.

 

I think the take away is that Wingnut doesn't believe there is a commandment against masturbation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Should I follow my doctor's advice on WoW/LoC, or my bishop's?"

This is all so dependent on the issue at hand. Thank goodness for the Holy Spirit. But I would exhaust all other options before doing something that would violate any of my covenants.

It's pretty well established, however, that medical necessity trumps the WoW... As nearly all medical procedures use substances, that if used recreationally, constitute breaking our covenants.

A Bishop turning the tables and saying that the WoW / LoC trump medicine?

That would follow that no LDS person can undergo

- Surgery

- Chemo/Radiation

- Dental work

- Local anesthesia for any procedure (locals usually use a cocaine derivative)

- IVF

- Etc etc etc

There ARE churches which ban it's members from undergoing medical treatment... With the same argument: that God would rather have us die than take substances into our bodies, or be laid open, etc.

I was just under the strong impression our church was not one of them.

That we were huge supporters of science & medicine?

And that spiritual & medical arenas were seperate?

Q

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share